Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Remember last season when Joe (almost) never passed on 1st or 2nd and goal?
And now this season he has?
Well, last season, we didn't have a veteran tight end, no 3rd WR, and even Boldin was hurt.
This season, we have Pitta & Dickson with some experience, Jacoby has been excellent (overall) for a 3rd WR, and Boldin is healthy.

So, now Cam feels comfortable relying on the passing game as much as the run in the red zone. But even now, most of Joe's TD passes at the goal line have been to the tight ends, the TDs by the WRs have been mostly the 20 yard+ kind.

This is essentially the same approach Cam used in San Diego when Gates was catching a TD almost every game, with Tomlinson not far behind. Cam doesn't like to rely on WRs in the red zone unless they prove themselves to be reliable red zone targets.

If Tommy Streeter develops, he may lead our WRs in TDs because of his height/size (our VJax) while Torrey will remain "the deep guy" (our Wallace) even if Torrey becomes the better all-around WR.

Cam hasn't really changed, and there's no reason to think he ever will.

I'm not sure if the WC is a good fit for Flacco though, he isn't a quick release type QB that is best making little dinky throws all game. He's best used taking shots down field or throwing strikes, the AC offense allows him to do those things, the problem is, it's such a dated offensive scheme.

I guess some kind of hybrid like what GB run would be a good fit.

He could have a quick release. Some olays he does get the ball out pretty quickly.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

I 100% agree. The AC is intended to be a grind it out style offense. The backs are primarily used as pass blockers on passing plays. The reason why it has failed so miserably in Bmore is because they have never had a truly great Oline. In order for that system to work the Oline and running game has to be so good that the other team needs to stack the box to stop the run. That way when you play action you have 1 on 1 matchups. Ravens Oline has never been that good. When they play action pass the wrs are rarely if ever open. Last year when they finally got a wr that could win one on one matchups they had success going deep. This year teams are bracketing Smith and are able to do this because they don't need to load the box to stop the run. The only reason the offense has been serviceable is because Rice is such a good receiver. When they run play action pass and none of the receivers are open he becomes the safety valve. I don't know in today's salary cap football that you can ever really run that offense. It is too costly to retain the necessary oline. The AC puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the Oline which has consistently been the Ravens weakest unit.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Cam Cameron runs the most traditional Air Coryell in the entire NFL--in fact, his system is generally identical to that of the 79-85 Chargers under Coryell.

I-formation offense or 2-TE offense, centered around two things: 1) running the ball between the tackles, and 2) deep pass patterns for the outside WRs with TEs and backs eating up the short space over the middle. Fouts' Chargers ran the ball more than they passed it, but (contrary to popular belief) the system is neither a run-first nor pass-first system--you can do more of either so long as you take advantage of the matchups (i.e. pass when the defense plays run and vice versa.)

The Coryell offense really works when you have 2 wideouts that the defense must respect deep, a TE who is unstoppable over the middle and down the seams, and a multi-threat RB. All of them have to be better athletes than the guys defending them because there is very little variation in the plays since each skill position has essentially only one overall job in the offense.

The Fouts Chargers had tremendous success with this offense because they had all the personnel needed to make it work. They had 2 deep threats at WR, a HOF TE that revolutionized the way the position was played with his athleticism, and a great pass-catching RB (Chuck Muncie). Not coincidentally, 5 of their 11 offensive starters were top 20 overall picks.

The ultra-traditional Air Coryell that Cam Cameron runs most of the time is too antiquated to work in the salary cap era. It relies on every skill position player winning his one-on-one matchup and an OL that is equally adept blocking in the run and pass. The main schematic problem with it is that it does not use any horizontally breaking routes. All the routes are vertical, and receivers are encouraged to round off their routes to get greater depth. This goes counter to the modern route running technique, which is to sharply break your routes in or out to better fool the defender. The routes are also not designed to work in concert at all, they are all pure isolation patterns.

Variants of the Air Coryell can work, but they need to be updated with modern route designs that break more sharply and work in tandem to set up route combinations. Coryell derivative offenses still work well and are used throughout the NFL. I believe that the reason the Ravens offense is so effective out of the no-huddle is that Flacco has learned a lot of the 2000's Colts playbook from Caldwell and is implementing it, possibly outside of the control of Cam Cameron.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by LC_Ravens_87

This was the first game I can remember Torrey running not only 1 but 2 crossers and Joe hitting him on both of them. Not only that, but Smith was lined up in the slot both times. It's a different wrinkle and with a guy like Jacoby Jones out there as well, one that I hope to see again.

Its amazing what happens when you utilize all of your toys. Torrey can do so much more than "9" routes all game. Not that he shouldn't run 9 routes, but he could be deadly in the slot (as almost evidenced in the SD game)

Originally Posted by LC_Ravens_87

Torrey is clearly growing as a route runner, and I don't know if it's so much Cam won't call these types of plays, it's just that they weren't likely to work with Torrey still in the learning process as an NFL WR.

Its all Cam IMO. Torrey actually used a quick "in" route from the slot on those crosses for the first time that I can remember. Not sure where I read it but one of the hallmarks of the AC offense is the receivers "rounding" their routes rather than hard breaks. Seems to me thats when we see our WR's not getting separation, this is the reason.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

I-formation offense or 2-TE offense, centered around two things: 1) running the ball between the tackles, and 2) deep pass patterns for the outside WRs with TEs and backs eating up the short space over the middle.

I wish they used the I-form with Leach and Rice behind him. I think it would help with reads for Joe to check out of and the LB's would have to match up with Leach and Ray if Joe switched to the shotgun (with Rice and Leach beside him). I think it could be so much more versatile, even if you're just running out of it because it puts everyone on the field that are best at their position.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

There is the spread option that we see from our offense when playing at home,
Of course there are the gimmick college offenses that the likes of Tebow can run, but they don't belong in the NFL.

The Spread option is what Tim Tebow ran at Florida and Cam Newton ran at Auburn. It gives the option of the quarterback taking the ball and running with it. And the sugar huddle isn't a type of offense, it is just a pace of play that be ran with any formation or playbook. The spread (not option) also isn't really an offensive philosophy, because we spread the field all of the time, yet the receivers are still running vertical (AC) routes.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by LoganSF

The Spread option is what Tim Tebow ran at Florida and Cam Newton ran at Auburn. It gives the option of the quarterback taking the ball and running with it. And the sugar huddle isn't a type of offense, it is just a pace of play that be ran with any formation or playbook. The spread (not option) also isn't really an offensive philosophy, because we spread the field all of the time, yet the receivers are still running vertical (AC) routes.

Yet...#5 running a draw or two, or a naked boot or two each game could be pretty effective.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by 4G63

Its all Cam IMO. Torrey actually used a quick "in" route from the slot on those crosses for the first time that I can remember. Not sure where I read it but one of the hallmarks of the AC offense is the receivers "rounding" their routes rather than hard breaks. Seems to me thats when we see our WR's not getting separation, this is the reason.

Because it's such a long article (and it's a freebie) here's the relevant excerpt:

The Ravens, unlike teams that use a West Coast passing attack, don't want their receivers making sharp, 90-degree breaks when they come out of their routes. Baltimore's Air Coryell offense asks its receivers to instead bend their routes while running full speed, a change that might seem subtle, but one that -- to a wide receiver -- is like trying to learn to write left-handed after spending your entire life as a righty.

"I was taught in college to break down," [Torrey] Smith said. "There are other teams in the league that run it like we did in college. But the way we do it, we round everything off because it's faster. You're still making sharp cuts, but it requires a brand-new technique, and we didn't have an offseason to work on it."

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

The ultra-traditional Air Coryell that Cam Cameron runs most of the time is too antiquated to work in the salary cap era. It relies on every skill position player winning his one-on-one matchup and an OL that is equally adept blocking in the run and pass. The main schematic problem with it is that it does not use any horizontally breaking routes. All the routes are vertical, and receivers are encouraged to round off their routes to get greater depth. This goes counter to the modern route running technique, which is to sharply break your routes in or out to better fool the defender. The routes are also not designed to work in concert at all, they are all pure isolation patterns.

I disagree. You don't have to have a ton of studs to make the Coryell work, and Gibbs proved that repeatedly in Washington. What you do need is a solid offensive line, a good running game, and a good mix of receivers. They don't have to be great, though Monk certainly was.

The Coryell is about dictating to the opponent, and that's what the Chargers did with Fouts and Co. and what Gibbs did with multiple personnel sets through the '80s. It's also about getting the offense into a rhythm. Pound the rock and throw for first downs, hit your fast guy/s deep when the defense creeps up.

The Redskins ditched the fullback for a blocking tight end (thanks to LT), and ran with a lone set back and three wide-outs. Leach is too good a player to leave on the bench, but there's no reason the Coryell can't work effectively with two in the backfield, a tight end, and two wide-outs. The Ravens just have to quit trying to throw it deep every third down and half the second downs. Boldin and Smith can both be effective on quick slants and crossing routes to move the chains. Rice is a feature back. Pierce is capable of spelling Rice.

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by bacchys

I disagree. You don't have to have a ton of studs to make the Coryell work, and Gibbs proved that repeatedly in Washington. What you do need is a solid offensive line, a good running game, and a good mix of receivers. They don't have to be great, though Monk certainly was.

The Coryell is about dictating to the opponent, and that's what the Chargers did with Fouts and Co. and what Gibbs did with multiple personnel sets through the '80s. It's also about getting the offense into a rhythm. Pound the rock and throw for first downs, hit your fast guy/s deep when the defense creeps up.

The Redskins ditched the fullback for a blocking tight end (thanks to LT), and ran with a lone set back and three wide-outs. Leach is too good a player to leave on the bench, but there's no reason the Coryell can't work effectively with two in the backfield, a tight end, and two wide-outs. The Ravens just have to quit trying to throw it deep every third down and half the second downs. Boldin and Smith can both be effective on quick slants and crossing routes to move the chains. Rice is a feature back. Pierce is capable of spelling Rice.

That was the 80's, this is now. IMO it can only work if you have Ray Rice in the back field, Calvin Johnson and Torrey Smith or Mike Wallace at WR, Grontkowski at TE, and JO at LT leading a solid Oline. IMPOSSIBLE in the cap era.

The Colts ran a version of the AC, and Denver is running it now. St Louis under Mike Martz ran the weirdest version of it I've even seen, it used screens and draws where everyone else used a power run game. Bruce Arians ran a hybrid WC/AC concept in Pitt for a while before they moved to a vertical WCO and more or less ditched their power run game.

The AC works. Just because a lot of teams don't run it doesn't mean anything. When the Ravens made the switch from the 4-3 to the 3-4 we were one of a very small handful of teams doing it. Now, half the league does. Things go in cycles and right now the WCO is at an apex, but just like the 3-4 was a good system in the early 2000s even though no one except Pitt was really embracing it, the AC can still put up points in buckets even though it's not a widely used system.

My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

The Colts ran a version of the AC, and Denver is running it now. St Louis under Mike Martz ran the weirdest version of it I've even seen, it used screens and draws where everyone else used a power run game. Bruce Arians ran a hybrid WC/AC concept in Pitt for a while before they moved to a vertical WCO and more or less ditched their power run game.

The AC works. Just because a lot of teams don't run it doesn't mean anything. When the Ravens made the switch from the 4-3 to the 3-4 we were one of a very small handful of teams doing it. Now, half the league does. Things go in cycles and right now the WCO is at an apex, but just like the 3-4 was a good system in the early 2000s even though no one except Pitt was really embracing it, the AC can still put up points in buckets even though it's not a widely used system.

But wouldn't you prefer a verticle based WCO? Short passes to Torrey Smith and letting him sprint up the field like a Victor Cruz, and of course you would have Boldin, Pitta, and Rice for first down conversions, everyone would be playing to their strengths. It would also help our Oline out too with quicker timed passes, our Oline (not many are in todays league) are built to pass protect for long developing routes IMO.

Frankly I don't think our receivers are polished enough route runners (except perhaps for Boldin who is on the decline) nor is Flacco precise enough in his mechanics to put a major emphasis on timing routes. I would like to see a better use of the route tree and more creative formations.

In other words, I think the best thing we could be offensively is the Colts during the Edge James years. An explosive, vertical offense with a strong running game complimenting it.

My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron

Re: Sunday confirms to me that the AC offense is simply not a good fit for today's NFL

Both the Giants and the Pats run a version of the un and Shoot offense. Was reading up on it and the problem with it is you're forced to protect your QB with only 6 guys. However a hybrid which is what both NY and NE run Brady/Manning in the Gun with their RB to their side and 4 WR's, or 3 WR's and a TE split out would be very effective here. Problem being you just lost the use of the best FB in the league.